GLOW vs. WBIF

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

GLOW (VictoryShares WestEnd Global Equity ETF) and WBIF (WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF) are both Global Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, GLOW returned 23.53% vs 23.62% for WBIF. Their 0.78 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. GLOW charges 0.72%/yr vs 1.25%/yr for WBIF.

Performance

GLOW vs. WBIF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VictoryShares WestEnd Global Equity ETF (GLOW) and WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF (WBIF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLOW achieves a 11.30% return, which is significantly lower than WBIF's 15.50% return.

GLOW

• 1D: -0.18%
• 1M: -0.86%
• 6M: 8.35%
• YTD: 11.30%
• 1Y: 23.53%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 17.70%

WBIF

• 1D: -0.37%
• 1M: 0.25%
• 6M: 12.52%
• YTD: 15.50%
• 1Y: 23.62%
• 3Y*: 7.72%
• 5Y*: 3.56%
• 10Y*: 5.87%
• ALL TIME*: 3.91%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
GLOW VictoryShares WestEnd Global Equity ETF	$210.60K	$374.13K	$387.50K
WBIF WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF	$828.17K	$406.02K	$174.16K

GLOW vs. WBIF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GLOW VictoryShares WestEnd Global Equity ETF	11.30%	21.29%	4.44%
WBIF WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF	15.50%	9.16%	-3.52%

Correlation

The correlation between GLOW and WBIF is 0.74, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.74
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 21, 2024	0.78

The correlation between GLOW and WBIF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.74 to 0.78 - a consistent structural relationship.

GLOW vs. WBIF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GLOW	WBIF
Technology	27.3%	25.6%
Financial Services	20.1%	27.2%
Healthcare	15.3%	3.2%
Industrials	8.9%	16.2%
Communication Services	7.9%	1.3%
Consumer Cyclical	6.7%	15.3%
Basic Materials	4.8%	2.8%
Utilities	4.4%	2.0%
Consumer Defensive	2.1%	2.0%
Energy	1.5%	4.4%
Real Estate	1.0%	-

Return for Risk

GLOW vs. WBIF — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

GLOW

GLOW Risk / Return Rank: 74
GLOW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
GLOW Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
GLOW Omega Ratio Rank: 73
GLOW Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
GLOW Martin Ratio Rank: 78

WBIF

WBIF Risk / Return Rank: 80
WBIF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
WBIF Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
WBIF Omega Ratio Rank: 75
WBIF Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
WBIF Martin Ratio Rank: 85

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

GLOW vs. WBIF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VictoryShares WestEnd Global Equity ETF (GLOW) and WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF (WBIF). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	GLOW	WBIF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.72	1.76	-0.04
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.43	2.58	-0.15
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.32	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.41	3.38	-0.97
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.06	11.98	-1.93

GLOW vs. WBIF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLOW Sharpe Ratio is 1.72, which is comparable to the WBIF Sharpe Ratio of 1.76. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLOW and WBIF, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

GLOW vs. WBIF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLOW drawdown since its inception was -15.58%, smaller than the maximum WBIF drawdown of -20.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLOW and WBIF.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLOW	WBIF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.58%	-20.29%	+4.71%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.33%	-6.60%	-2.73%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-17.16%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-20.29%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-20.29%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.59%	-1.79%	+0.20%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.77%	-7.64%	+5.87%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.23%	1.86%	+0.37%

Volatility

GLOW vs. WBIF - Volatility Comparison

VictoryShares WestEnd Global Equity ETF (GLOW) and WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF (WBIF) have volatilities of 3.45% and 3.61%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GLOW	WBIF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.45%	3.61%	-0.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.78%	9.28%	+1.50%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.07%	12.70%	+0.37%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.13%	12.90%	+2.23%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.13%	12.39%	+2.74%

GLOW vs. WBIF - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLOW has a 0.72% expense ratio, which is lower than WBIF's 1.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

GLOW vs. WBIF - Dividend Comparison

GLOW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.24%, more than WBIF's 0.06% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GLOW VictoryShares WestEnd Global Equity ETF	1.24%	1.33%	1.18%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
WBIF WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF	0.06%	0.14%	1.17%	0.82%	0.96%	2.59%	0.09%	1.04%	0.77%	0.75%	0.67%	0.86%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GLOW and WBIF in my portfolio?

GLOW and WBIF have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GLOW or WBIF?

WBIF has higher volatility (3.61%) compared to GLOW (3.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GLOW dropped -15.58% vs WBIF's -20.29%.

Which ETF is better, GLOW or WBIF?

On 1-year performance, WBIF leads with 23.62% vs 23.53% for GLOW. On fees, GLOW is cheaper at 0.72% per year. On volatility, GLOW has been the lower-risk option at 3.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GLOW or WBIF?

Over the 1-year period, WBIF has performed better with a 23.62% return vs 23.53%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GLOW or WBIF?

GLOW is cheaper with a 0.72% expense ratio, compared with 1.25% for WBIF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GLOW or WBIF?

GLOW has the higher dividend yield at 1.24%, compared with 0.06% for WBIF.

What is the main difference between GLOW and WBIF?

They also come from different issuers: VictoryShares and WBI. Their fees differ too: 0.72% for GLOW and 1.25% for WBIF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

WBIF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.76 vs 1.72), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.